Public Buy-In Missing from Standards Adoption

Posted June 9, 2010

April 11, 2010

Arkansas Democrat Gazette

http://jaypgreene.com/2010/04/11/sandy-and-jay-on-national-standards

One Size Fits None

by Jay P. Greene

The Obama administration and Gates Foundation are orchestrating an effort to get every state to adopt a set of national standards for public elementary and secondary schools.

These standards describe what students should learn in each subject in each grade. Eventually these standards can be used to develop national high-stakes tests, which will shape the curriculum in every school.

National standards are a seductive but dangerous idea. People tend to support national standards because they imagine that they will be the ones deciding what everyone else should learn. Dictatorship always sounds more appealing when you fantasize that you will be the dictator.

But the reality is that we are a large, diverse and decentralized country with strong democratic traditions, making national standards-setting a futile task.

Either the standards are too prescriptive and are unable to attract the broad consensus necessary for adoption, or they are vague enough to form a national coalition but so vague that they are entirely useless.

The past two efforts at developing national standards illustrate each type of failure. During the early 1990s, under President George H.W. Bush, an attempt at writing national standards faltered when the history standards were perceived to be prescribing a left-wing agenda. The U.S. Senate actually rejected those standards 99 to 0. Then in the late nineties under President Bill Clinton the national standards push avoided attracting this type of opposition by making the standards very loose and general. The result was that they had no effect. So now we are like Sisyphus, rolling the national standards stone back up the hill yet again.

Even if we could somehow thread the needle and win national adoption of standards that were rigorous and specific, there is no reason to believe that they would stay that way. Once the automobile of national standards is built, eventually someone will gain control of the wheel and drive it in a direction you oppose. And if the entire nation is governed by those standards, there is no hopping out of the car. We’ll all drive over the cliff together.

The virtue of developing standards at the state, district and school level is that it accommodates the legitimate diversity of opinion about how children could best be educated. No one suggests that math is fundamentally different in different places, but whether, for example, all children should be taught long division in 3rd grade is not a settled question. If we adopt national standards, then we destroy the laboratory of the states that might help us learn about which approaches are more effective for which students.

The idea that all students nationwide should be learning the same thing at the same age denies the reality of how diverse our children are. Some of our children are more advanced and would be bored silly if we don’t allow them to progress at a more rapid rate. Other students need more time to master their material. Some students would benefit from a greater emphasis on the arts, while others might thrive with greater emphasis on science. To impose a single curriculum on all students is to build a system where one size fits none.

We don’t need national standards to prevent states from dumbing down their own standards. We already have a national test, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) administered by the U.S. Department of Education, to show how states are performing on a common yardstick and to shame those that set the bar too low. Illinois, for example, isn’t fooling anyone when it says that 82% of its 8th graders are proficient in reading because according to NAEP only 30% are proficient. The beauty of NAEP is that it provides information without forcing conformity to a single, national curriculum.

Nor is it the case that adopting national standards would close the achievement gap between the U.S. and our leading economic competitors. Yes, many of the countries that best us on international tests have national standards, but so do many of the countries that lag behind us. If there really were one true way to educate all children, why stop at national standards? Why not have global standards with a global curriculum?

We would oppose global standards for the same reasons we should oppose national standards. Making education uniform at too high of a level of aggregation ignores the diversity of needs of our children as well as the diversity of opinion about how best to serve those needs. And giving people at the national or global level the power to determine what everyone should learn is dangerous because they will someday use that power to promote unproductive or even harmful ideas.

Jay P. Greene is the endowed professor of education reform at the University of Arkansas.

June 2, 2010

National Governors Association and State Education Chiefs Launch Common State Academic Standards

NOTE: These comments by Susan Ohanian are evidence- and research-based.

Read the Press Release below from the Common Core State Standards group and weep. Then get up and fight!

As I started reading I thought maybe someone told them the definition of "rigor," so now they call the standards "robust." But later on, "rigor" rears its ugly head.

Killing is what these Common Core standards are. Killing and bloated. The language is impossible.

Read the official document and you see that these standards are informed by "competitiveness" and a corporate notion of what schools need, not the actual needs of children.

Steve Paine, West Virginia State Superintendent of Schools, says these standards provide "a roadmap" for what teachers and parents need to do to help students. What does he have in mind? That the family should sit at home and read Shelley? He also talks about the Common Core enabling everybody "to be on the same page" and asserts this will make the country strong.

He should be ashamed of himself.

Worse, putting everybody on the same page will lead to the final death blow to public education.

We already knew Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue had no shame so it comes as no surprise that he claims, "When American students have the skills and knowledge needed in today's jobs, our communities will be positioned to compete successfully in the global economy."

"Roadmap" is a popular trite metaphor here; it is used by at least three supporters. A member of the Georgia State Board of Education thinks that making sure every student across the nation reads "Hamlet"--or its equivalent-- "levels the playing field."

Gov. Roy Romer, Senior Advisor, The College board makes an extraordinary claim that with the Common Core it doesn't "matter where a child lives or what their [sic] background is."

Indeed.

Remember when Lily Eskelsen was NEA secretary-treasure and everybody's heroine--for writing an anti-NCLB song? Now she's NEA vice-president and singing the praises of the Common Core. See below. At the Common Core website Dennis Van Roekel is first person on video voicing support

Congratulations, NEA members. Your dues at work.

These two NEA collaborationists join the Former CEO and Chairman of the Board, Intel Corporation, Executive Director, Council of the Great City Schools, President, Achieve, AFT, State Farm Insurance and CEO, National Parent-Teacher Association, and on and on in this opening round of praise. Gates paid PTA $1 million to pump the Common Core. I don't know what the others got.

I propose a little Reality TV: Put the supporters listed below around a table on national TV, and force them to read and discuss, say, "Tartuffe," As I Lay Dying, and Euclid's Elements.

And maybe Tom Paine's Common Sense.

Or make your own list from the exemplar texts.

Including one poem by Jimmy Santiago Baca does not outweigh damage of making ALL kids read Shelley, Keats, John Donne, and W. H. Auden. My first year of teaching I was lucky enough to attend poetry seminars sponsored by the New York City Board of Ed. Once a week we went to an auditorium and heard famous poets talk about poetry. I remember W. H. Auden begging us not to teach "I wandered lonely as a cloud," not because Wordsworth was a bad poet but because he was dead to our students. Auden begged us to make poetry come alive. I think he'd be appalled to be on this list. I wish these Standardistos could have heard Auden's impassioned words ringing in their ears as they listed "Ozymandias" and 99% of the rest as "exemplar texts."

If you want to know how corrupt this standards-setting imperative is, take a look at the bibliographies which are listed as Research Supporting
Key Elements of the Standards. Here's one bibliography:

Reading Foundational Skills

Balmuth, M. (1992). The roots of phonics: A historical introduction. Baltimore, MD: York Press.

Bryson, B. (1990). The mother tongue: English and how it got that way. New York: Avon Books.

Ganske, K. (2000). Word journeys. New York: Guilford.

Hanna, P. R., Hanna, S., Hodges, R. E., & Rudorf, E. H. (1966). Phoneme-grapheme correspondences as cues to spelling
improvement. Washington, DC: Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

Henry, M. (2003). Unlocking literacy: Effective decoding and spelling instruction. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

Moats, L. C. (2000). Speech to print: Language essentials for teachers. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

Moats, L. C. (2008). Spellography for teachers: How English spelling works. (LETRS Module 3). Longmont, CO: Sopris West.

Venezky, R. (2001). The American way of spelling. New York: Guilford.

The Common Core tie student reading "levels" Lexile ratings. Maybe this will push me to cut the length of a paper I wrote on the execrable Accelerated Reader
version of Lexile ratings and get it published. The problem is the examples are so deliciously awful that I hate to part with them.

Just put me in the "making excuses" camp. I worked all my life with students who hated school. I looked for books kids would enjoy reading, books that would convince them they might like to read another book some day.

One example: While I was wandering around the Boston Book Fair on a Saturday morning, a tall black man approached and handed me his business card, saying, You taught me to love books. Twenty years previously, he had been a squirrely 7th grader in my first remedial reading class in Troy, New York. He is now a successful TV producer.

Teachers who work with so-called difficult kids rarely get a glimpse of the fruits of their labor. I will glory forever in the knowledge that I taught a 7th grader who grew up to be a man who found it worth his while to spend a Saturday morning at the Boston Book Fair.

I think of my students students as I read the Common Core, and I weep. I think of what it means to be a professional, and I weep some more.

Press Release

NATIONAL GOVERNORS ASSOCIATION AND STATE EDUCATION CHIEFS LAUNCH COMMON STATE ACADEMIC STANDARDS

Robust standards drafted by teachers, content experts, and leading researchers are the cornerstone of a state led effort to turn our nation's schools around.

Suwanee, GA -- June 2, 2010 -- Today, the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA Center) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) released a set of state-led education standards, the Common Core State Standards, at Peachtree Ridge High School in Suwanee, GA. The English-language arts and mathematics standards for grades K-12 were developed in collaboration with a variety of stakeholders including content experts, states, teachers, school administrators and parents. The standards establish clear and consistent goals for learning that will prepare America’s children for success in college and work.

Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue, Delaware Gov. Jack Markell, West Virginia State Superintendent of Schools Steve Paine, Florida Commissioner of Education Dr. Eric J. Smith, American Federation of Teachers (AFT) President Randi Weingarten, CEO of Baltimore City Public Schools Andres Alonso, and Vice President of the National Education Association (NEA) Lily Eskelsen have come out in support of the standards.

The event featured a panel discussion moderated by President of Alliance for Excellent Education and former West Virginia Gov. Bob Wise. Panelists were:

-------------------------------------------------

NOTE: The Thomas B. Fordham Foundation/Institute,, under the leadership of Chester E. Finn, Jr.,  has promoting standards since it narrowed its focus to education in 1996. They have issued a number of publications, ranking state standards, but these rankings don't match up with NAEP results, meaning a state like Vermont received fery low marks on its standards but high rankings on NAEP.

By Chester E. Finn, Jr.

The earlier drafts were unexpectedly and encouragingly good, particularly when placed alongside the crummy standards that too many states have come up with on their own. Fordham has been reviewing state academic standards since 1997, and we've been appalled by their general mediocrity even as we've been impressed and encouraged by a few. The final CCSSI standards would have to be a lot worse than the drafts for them not to represent significantly higher and more thoughtful academic expectations (in the two core subjects that they encompass) than those that presently drive K-12 education in much of the land.

It's that widespread mediocrity, more than anything else, that has led me and my colleagues to favor some form of national standards—on the assumption, that is, that they'll be more rigorous than what we're using today. Plenty of other arguments can be made for national standards, including the fact that most big, modern, mobile countries on our shrinking and competitive planet have some form of national standards and tests—indeed, some form of national curriculum—for their schools, their teachers, and their children. But none of these arguments holds water unless the standards themselves are solid.

America has, however, been mugged by disappointing reality more than once and it would be imprudent and risky to turn CCSSI into an overhyped endeavor that states are browbeaten or bribed into joining without careful consideration of multiple variables. Indeed, we'd probably be better off in the long run if the federal Race to the Top program were not crowding states to make this decision within sixty days. Worse, they're expected to commit to such a decision (to qualify for RTT funding) by June 1, even though the standards themselves don't appear until June 2! This has the makings of theater-of-the-absurd. It also raises anxiety levels about this worthy state-initiated, state-led venture turning into yet another federal mandate that will get caught in the wringer of Washington politics.

Installing new standards in one's schools, even solid, ambitious, rigorous, content-rich standards, such as we all hope the "common core" will turn out to be, is a momentous decision. At least if it's to be more than lip-service—a façade of "adoption" that conceals the same old teachers teaching the same old stuff and assessing it via the same old tests. As most people now realize, standards per se are simply statements of aspiration—the skills and knowledge we yearn for our children to acquire as they pass through primary and secondary schooling. To have real traction and make a material difference in what's actually learned, standards must be properly implemented.

That includes major changes in curriculum, textbooks, and other instructional materials; in teacher preparation, certification, evaluation and in-service training; in student assessments; in student and school-level accountability systems (both state and federal); in end-of-high-school expectations; and eventually in much more, including college admissions and placement. Because it is such a big deal, states considering adoption of the CCSSI standards should make themselves answer these four questions:

1. How do the common core standards in math and English/language arts compare with those they're already using? (We intend to help with this one. Watch for a comparative analysis from Fordham in about six weeks. And we'll call it as we see it, including noting any cases where state standards turn out to be superior.)
2. Does the state (and its districts) have the political, organizational, and financial capacity to infuse new and different standards throughout its K-12 system—and all the other systems that connect to it? Some places have recently made sizable investments in implementing their present academic standards. On the other hand, some "economies of scale" will likely result from adopting common standards and tests.
3. If the new standards are indeed more demanding than the old, and assuming that these loftier expectations are mirrored by new assessments and definitions of "proficiency," do state (and local) leaders have the intestinal fortitude to deal with the likeliest short-term consequence, namely a lot more kids not being promoted or graduated?
4. Does the state have the resolve—and the means—to do all this in English language arts and math without short-changing the rest of what educated people must learn in school: science and history, obviously, but also the arts, civics, health, languages and more?

At day's end, it's still states that are responsible for public education in the U.S.—and states that must determine whether and how to change it. To be sure, the "common core" carries with it significant implications for the federal government, too, most obviously in the revision of NCLB/ESEA, as well as any later iterations of Race to the Top (and, of course, the grant competition now underway for new assessments).

States will do their kids no favor if they mess up this decision or just go through the motions of embracing new standards, maybe only long enough to qualify for RTT funding. In short order, everyone in those jurisdictions will recognize that this was a false messiah—and educators and voters alike will grow even more cynical about standards-based education reform.

But neither will states benefit their children or enhance their own futures by stubbornly clinging to mediocrity in the face of a rare opportunity to steer the entire K-12 enterprise onto a sounder course than it has been following. That's why these decisions should be carefully and soberly made, not rushed to judgment.

---------------------------

By Nick Anderson and Rosalind S. Helderman
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, May 27, 2010; B04

Gov. Robert F. McDonnell pulled Virginia out of President Obama's Race to the Top school reform derby Wednesday, a turnabout after he had pushed hard for the state to get a share of the $4 billion in federal funding.

In March, Virginia finished a disappointing 31st out of 41 competitors in the first round of the competition. Delaware and Tennessee were the first winners; the District finished 16th. Maryland did not compete in the first round but plans to do so in the second.

Virginia's withdrawal, days before the Tuesday deadline for second-round applications, was not a surprise. The state has been quiet on school policy in recent weeks while others have approved new laws or regulations to align with Obama's reform agenda. The president is pushing for states to overhaul teacher evaluation, move toward performance pay, improve low-performing schools and raise academic standards.

On Tuesday, Maryland's State Board of Education endorsed a proposal for common academic standards in math and English language arts developed at the instigation of governors and state schools chiefs across the country. That endorsement could help Maryland win points on its application.

McDonnell (R) cited the common standards initiative as a key reason for the withdrawal. He said the state would not abandon its benchmarks, known as the Standards of Learning.

"The problem is that the way they have structured this program to mandate that we adopt a common core of standards to replace the Standards of Learning is unacceptable," McDonnell told reporters in Richmond. "We can't go back. We've been working on this for 15 years. Our standards are much superior. They're well accepted. They're validated. All the education leaders have a comfort level with those. So once again, a federal mandate to adopt a federal common core standard is just not something I can accept, nor can most of the education leaders in Virginia, nor can most of the legislators."

McDonnell said he supported other elements of Obama's agenda, including expansion of high-quality charter schools and performance pay. For those reasons, he had lobbied for the state's bid in the first round. The General Assembly approved legislation to help promote charter schools.

In the Race to the Top, adoption of common standards counts for 20 points out of a possible 500. Virginia lost points in the first round on several other criteria as well. But Patricia I. Wright, the state superintendent of public instruction, told reporters in a conference call that it was clear that the state would lose points in various ways because of its stance on standards.

Wright said that she was "distraught" at the inability to compete but that she supported the withdrawal. "We, collectively, in Virginia have made the decision that substituting the common core standards for our Standards of Learning is not a prudent thing to do," she said.

Many states are expected to adopt the common standards after the final proposal is released next week by the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers.

If you are a member of ASCD, consider quitting immediately. At the very least, write a letter of protest.

Tel: 1-800-933-ASCD (2723)
Fax: 1-703-575-5400

ASCD

1703 N. Beauregard St.
Alexandria, VA 22311-1714 USA

ASCD Works with CCSSO and NGA on Common Core State Standards Initiative

Statement from Gene R. Carter, Executive Director, ASCD
May 5, 2010

I’m pleased to announce that ASCD has become an endorsing partner of the Common Core State Standards Initiative, a state-led effort spearheaded by the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) and the National Governors Association (NGA) to develop a common core of state standards that prepare our children for college, the workforce, and success in the global economy. The initiative's goal is to create K–12 English language arts and mathematics standards that are "fewer, higher, clearer"; internationally benchmarked; research-based; and aligned with college- and career-readiness expectations.

Creating such high standards is the first step in transforming our education system. But just as important is helping educators understand the new standards and how to implement them in their schools and classrooms. The common core standards effort—and the hard work of CCSSO, NGA, and their partners—won't bring about positive, meaningful change for students unless we translate the standards from words on a page to tangible improvements in learning and teaching. In collaboration with CCSSO and NGA, ASCD will strive to ensure teachers receive professional development that helps them develop lessons and deliver instruction aligned with the standards, gauge student progress in mastering the standards, and provide additional support to students who need it.

ASCD members recently adopted a position that outlines the guiding principles under which standards should be developed and implemented. These principles address everything from educating the whole child through a broad and rich curriculum to including educator input throughout the standards development, implementation, and evaluation process. The position and its principles will serve as ASCD's ongoing guide as we work on the Common Core State Standards Initiative.

As the final K–12 English language arts and math standards are released in the coming weeks, we eagerly anticipate working with CCSSO and NGA to make sure the standards become a reality in every classroom and lead to significant improvements in learning and teaching across the states.

Contact Information  

• Barbara Michelman, communications director, 1-703-575-5764
  
• David Griffith, public policy director, 1-703-575-5621
  

Founded in 1943, ASCD is a nonprofit educational leadership association that develops programs, products, and services essential to the way educators learn, teach, and lead. We provide expert and innovative solutions in professional development, capacity building, and educational leadership. ASCD's membership comprises more than 170,000 principals, teachers, superintendents, professors of education, and other educators from 136 countries. Our association also has nearly 60 affiliates throughout the world.

One Size Doesn’t Fit All

by Nancy Carlsson-Paige and Diane E. Levin

Boston Globe

April 18, 2010

The proposed common core national education standards for K-12 - which will impose higher academic standards on younger children - contradict decades of early education theory and research about how young children learn best and how to close the achievement gap.

The imposition of one-size-fits-all standards on young children can't solve the problems of an education system that is fundamentally unequal. Children in wealthy school districts receive many times the resources that children in poor communities do. The United States stands out in sharp contrast to the many countries that take a central and equal approach to school funding. Our unequal funding only adds to the disadvantages, such as hunger and lack of health care, that so many children bring to school resulting from the widening income disparities in our nation.

The proposed standards focus exclusively on teaching isolated reading and math skills starting in kindergarten. Academic learning is separated from social, emotional, and physical growth. But theory, research, and experience tell us that meaningful learning in young children does not come from rote skills. Children build knowledge through hands-on experience with materials, peers, and teachers in meaningful ways that relate to what they already know, to their developmental levels, and their interests.

If adopted, the national standards will lead to more rote learning by all young children, but especially our poorest young learners who are in overcrowded classrooms with less qualified teachers who will have to resort to more direct instruction rather than hands-on, experiential learning. Even if we did see better test scores after an implementation of national standards, it's unlikely that children would be able to apply the skills learned by rote to real-life situations, use them to solve new problems, or discover the satisfactions inherent when learning is meaningful. This will set young children up for school failure later on when transfer of knowledge and self-motivation become crucial to school success.

The increase in teacher-directed instruction that has resulted from No Child Left Behind has already pushed play out of the curriculum in kindergartens countrywide. This is a far greater problem than many realize. Play is the cornerstone of social, emotional, and cognitive learning and healthy development. It is through play that children develop the foundation for cognitive concepts, problem solving skills, and critical thinking which is essential for later academic learning. Play generates imagination and creativity, planning and self-regulation. It helps children develop a love for learning.

The No Child Left Behind Act, with its high-stakes testing beginning in 3rd grade, has led many schools, especially in poor communities, to start the drill and testing regime in kindergarten. This shift, even before the release of the new standards, has eroded the foundation young children need for school success.

We won't make genuine progress in closing the achievement gap in our nation's schools until we address the underlying inequities that are its root cause. Imposing more standards and tests is a misplaced, misleading, even harmful approach. If these standards are imposed, we will see a continuing achievement gap and new levels of stress and failure among young children. Worst of all, we will have missed an opportunity to give our nation's children the best possible education, the one they deserve and the one our future depends on.

They’re good for the state

My Day with the Media

by Susan Ohanian

I've had a whirlwind day and a half talking with the media about my opposition to the Common Core standards. It all started with a line in today's Washington Post, which no longer seems available at their website. I'm glad I posted it immediately on my site. Otherwise I might think I was hallucinating.

Further proof that the story once existed at the Washington Post is the fact that I got a phonecall at 6:30 this morning from CBS Radio News, asking me to explain my comment in the Washington Post against the Common Core. Later a call with the same question came from Katie Couric's producer. They'd also read my comment in the Washington Post.

It's a mystery. If you hit on the url I posted with the article, a different article comes up now.

Is there some plot to eliminate from the media all negative comments about the Common Core? Or am I just being paranoid again?

I told the reporters the good news is that we managed to get rid of Plato for 6th graders and Wordsworth's Prelude. And truly, we should declare victory over this. Alas, Faulkner's 15 narrators live on for hapless 11th graders.

One reporter asked me what I have against Wordsworth, and I explained that when the Prelude was inflicted on me in college I figured I had only myself to blame. After all, I'd chosen to be an English major.

I just think it's both ludicrous and detrimental for corporate politicos to be telling teachers which vowel sounds kindergartners need to know. And it's a crime that educators are keeping their lips sealed about all this.

This what I told the Washington Post, CBS Radio, Katie Couric's producer, and USA Today, where I also was quoted. But the part about the Alliance for Childhood's fine statement calling for the abandonment of K-3 standards didn't make the editorial cut.  I told Couric's producer to get in touch with the Alliance for Childhood, the one organization willing to speak out and take a stand for the needs of children.

I'm distraught that I couldn't tell them to call NCTE. Imagine not being able to refer the media to the professional organization to which you gave your allegiance for decades.

My pride in that organization is gone. I'll refrain from saying what's left. See My NCTE.  And see their explanation of participation in the Common Core project.

CBS Radio phoned at 6:30 a.m., telling me I'd be on every hour across the nation. Good thing I'm an early riser. Some people would have been ticked off royally. Well, as a matter of fact, I did get ticked off royally, but not because of the early hour.

I wanted to tell the guy he's a horse's ass, but I restrained myself. Here is a small part of our conversation:

Me: I'm glad they dumped Plato for 6th graders.

CBS Radio: What's wrong with Plato?

Me: Most of us didn't encounter him until college.

CBS Radio: Maybe that's the problem.

Me: Problem?

CBS Radio: College is too late. Kids need to encounter the great books earlier.

Politics and Parsnips: Obama's Common Core

The Burlington Free Press reported ("Dinner at 1600," Feb. 23) that as President Barack Obama was offering a toast before a four-course dinner at the White House, he acknowledged a tuxedo-clad Vermont Governor Jim Douglas as "an extraordinary partner with this White House." Obama was referring to the work of the National Governors Association on the Common Core Standards in math and reading.

The New York Times called this national standards effort "a bipartisan project at variance with the highly polarized political mood in Washington." I call it a unilateral policy leaving out teachers, students, and parents.

For starters, I'd like to ask all the governors if they have read As I Lay Dying, with its 15 narrators, offered, along with Pride and Prejudice as Exemplar Text for 11th graders. I'd like to ask Bill and Melinda Gates, too. After all, they gave $1 million smackers to the PTA to promote these standards.

And how about Wordsworth's Preface to Lyrical Ballads (1800), presented as an Exemplar Text, for 9th graders? When I grappled with Wordsworth's great principle of emotion recollected in tranquility as a grad student, I figured I had only myself to blame. After all, I'd chosen to be an English major. And to go to grad school. But hapless 14-year-olds across the land aren't English majors and they have no stake at all in this canon which is traveling as someone's idea of rigor.

Please look up the definition of rigor, and the next time you hear a corporate politico -- or Bill Gates -- call for rigor in the schools, shelter your children.

Do our nation's governors think 14-year-olds will embrace Wordsworth's declarations about the source of the sexual appetite, and all the passions connected with it? And if not, perhaps our Chief State School Officers might offer some ideas for differentiated teaching strategies. After all, the Council of Chief State School Officers were co-conspirators in the production of the Common Core document.

Things are just as dicey for younger students. Here are two selections the National Governors Association and the Chief State School Officers offer as Exemplar Narratives for children in grades 6-8: "Allegory of the Cave" from The Republic by Plato (380 BCE) and "Address to Students at Moscow State University" by Ronald Reagan (1988).

Plato for 11-year-olds.

A friend of mine said that she'd read As I Lay Dying, and as a result never went near another book by Faulkner. Of course, Faulkner is not the point here. A good teacher can pull students through just about anything, but the danger here is that the kid who has "survived " such a piece of literature will be reluctant to pick up another book. And that's a tragedy. I regard it as my sacred duty as a teacher to help individual students find individual books that will knock their socks off, books that touch their lives in such a way that they will be compelled to read another book. And another.

According to the Burlington Free Press account, both Obama and Douglas offered toasts with glasses of water. One can only wonder what the people devising the Common Core were drinking. The Exemplar Text lists offered as an appendix to the Common Core are baffling -- and ludicrous -- at every grade level.

In order to qualify for the pots of money President Obama is eager to hand out, states must accept 100 percent of the Common Core standards document. They cannot pick and choose. Exercising any judgment based on what teachers and parents know about kids and about literature is forbidden. To get the Obama bribe, state politicos must promise that schoolchildren will be forced to swallow ALL the Kool-Aid.

The governors, the chief state school officers, and President Obama insist these are "high-quality education standards," drawing on "the most important international models as well as research and input from numerous sources, including scholars, assessment developers, professional organizations, and educators from kindergarten through college. In their design and content, the Standards represent a synthesis of the best elements of standards-related work to date and an important advance over that previous work."

I say they're parsnips and I say to hell with them.

Sesame vs. Watermelon: What is Missing in the National Standard Debate

Education:  Debunking the Case for National Standards - Alfie Kohn

Debunking the Case for National Standards

[This is a slightly expanded version of the article published in
Education Week’s annual “Quality Counts” issue.]

Opposition to Common Core Standards crosses pedagogical lines.
See The Rush to Common Core Standards at The Educated Guess blog, which describes itself as "a forum on education policies in California and Silicon Valley. It is funded by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and sponsored by the Silicon Valley Education Foundation. Its  mission is to challenge thinking on critical issues facing families, educators and political leaders through informed, in-depth discussions. It will welcome many points of view."



PTA Makes Big Push for the Common Core Standards

Dec. 17, 2009  ALERT: Having received $1 million from the Gates Foundation, the national PTA is gearing up to
train people for grassroots support of the Common Core Standards. According to their press release
                     PTA’s efforts to advance the common core state standards will build on PTA’s
                     rich history in advocating for key education, health and child welfare reforms,
                     while complementing PTA’s current Public Policy Agenda.

"Grassroots" takes on a new meaning when it is bankrolled by $1 million.

In a true grassroots effort, people around the country are distributing the Say Yes! cards. The Coalition for Better Education  in Colorado reports a growing number of requests for the card. The template for the card is available on this website, along with some suggestions for using it.








House Education and Labor Committee Announces Hearing on Common Core Standards

Please notice that Doug Kubach, the president and CEO of Pearson, will be testifying at this full committee meeting. Pearson, because of its world-wide testing and curricula entities, stands to make a fortune over national standards/curricula/tests. How likely is it that he will be  able to give an impartial presentation before the House ELC?

 The House Education and Labor Committee will hold a hearing [before the full House ELC committee] on Tuesday, December 8 at 10:00 a.m. EST titled “Improving Our Competitiveness: Common Core Education Standards.” Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter, Jr. will testify on behalf of NGA and will give an update on the NGA/Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) Common Core State Standards Initiative. Other witnesses include Gene Wilhoit, executive director of CCSSO; Doug Kubach, president and CEO of Pearson; and Cathy Allen, vice chair of the Board of Education at St. Mary’s County Public Schools. The hearing will take place in 2175 Rayburn House Office Building.

Committee Members

Full Committee, 111th Congress

Democrats

·                  George Miller, Chairman (CA-07)

·                  Dale E. Kildee (MI-05)

·                  Donald M. Payne (NJ-10)

·                  Robert E. Andrews (NJ-01)

·                  Robert C. Scott (VA-03)

·                  Lynn C. Woolsey (CA-06)

·                  Rubén Hinojosa (TX-15)

·                  Carolyn McCarthy (NY-04)

·                  John F. Tierney (MA-06)

·                  Dennis J. Kucinich (OH-10)

·                  David Wu (OR-01)

·                  Rush D. Holt (NJ-12)

·                  Susan A. Davis (CA-53)

·                  Raúl M. Grijalva (AZ-07)

·                  Timothy H. Bishop (NY-01)

·                  Joe Sestak (PA-07)

·                  Dave Loebsack (IA-02)

·                  Mazie Hirono (HI-02)

·                  Jason Altmire (PA-04)

·                  Phil Hare (IL-17)

·                  Yvette Clarke (NY-11)

·                  Joe Courtney (CT-02)

·                  Carol Shea-Porter (NH-01)

·                  Marcia Fudge (OH-11)

·                  Jared Polis (CO-2)

·                  Paul Tonko (NY-21)

·                  Pedro Pierluisi (PR)

·                  Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan (Northern Mariana Islands)

·                  Dina Titus (NV-3)

·                  Judy Chu (CA-32)

Republicans

·                  John Kline, Ranking Member (MN-02)

·                  Thomas E. Petri (WI-06)

·                  Howard "Buck" McKeon (CA-25)

·                  Peter Hoekstra (MI-02)

·                  Michael N. Castle (DE-At Large)

·                  Mark E. Souder (IN-03)

·                  Vernon J. Ehlers (MI-03)

·                  Judy Biggert (IL-13)

·                  Todd Russell Platts (PA-19)

·                  Joe Wilson (SC-02)

·                  Cathy McMorris Rodgers (WA-05)

·                  Tom Price (GA-06)

·                  Rob Bishop (UT-01)

·                  Brett Guthrie (KY-2)

·                  Bill Cassidy (LA-6)

·                  Tom McClintock (CA-4)

·                  Duncan D. Hunter (CA-52)

·                  David P. Roe (TN-1)

CHICAGO, IL--(Marketwire - December 2, 2009) - National PTA is positioning itself as a key player at the front line of education reform. The association today announced a new three-year effort to mobilize parents to advance key education priorities, beginning with common core state standards -- a voluntary, state-led, internationally benchmarked set of high academic standards in English language arts and mathematics. A $1 million grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation will help support the effort.

Beginning in January 2010, National PTA will educate and train PTA members and parents about the common core state standards, focusing early outreach in four states: Florida, Georgia, New Jersey, and North Carolina. National PTA plans to engage additional states as this work moves forward in mid-2010.

"Currently, there are disparities in the level of rigor because every state has a different set of standards. This reform effort will educate parents about the need for higher, clearer and fewer standards so that they know what their child should be learning in school and how they can support learning at home," said Charles J. "Chuck" Saylors, National PTA President. "Parents should be able to rest assured that their child is up to par with their peers across the country and around the world no matter where they choose to raise their child."

For decades, National PTA has taken action for children. Through this effort, the association is taking another step toward education reform by addressing common core standards. It is National PTA's fundamental belief that every child, regardless of zip code, deserves an equal education, and all teachers deserve a set of clear, high standards.

"Education standards have historically been too vast and too vague to provide the focus required for students and teachers to achieve at high levels," said Vicki L. Phillips, Director of Education, College-Ready, at the Gates Foundation. "National PTA and its five million members can be a leading voice in the common core standards movement, raising academic expectations nationwide and preparing all students for success beyond high school."

National PTA is committed to ensuring that all students graduate college- and career-ready. Earlier this year in June the association called for the creation of common core state standards and became an endorsing partner of the National Governors Association and Council of Chief State School Officers' Common Core State Standards Initiative. In September, National PTA also offered its full support of the initiative's draft college- and career-readiness standards.

To date, 51 states and territories have joined the Common Core State Standards Initiative. The full K-12 standards are expected to be finalized in early 2010.

"National PTA believes that there should be a level playing field among states, school districts and schools that will give all students the opportunity to be ready for their college and career. This effort will bring us one step closer to real education reform. It will ensure equity in education nationwide and will improve the level of rigor that will ultimately make the U.S. more competitive with other leading countries," said Byron V. Garrett, National PTA's Chief Executive Officer.

About National PTA

National PTA comprises millions of families, students, teachers, administrators, and business and community leaders devoted to the educational success of children and the promotion of family engagement in schools. PTA is a registered 501(c)(3) nonprofit association that prides itself on being a powerful voice for all children, a relevant resource for families and communities, and a strong advocate for public education. Membership in PTA is open to anyone who wants to be involved and make a difference for the education, health, and welfare of children and youth.

To view a media-rich version of this release, go to: http://www.pwrnewmedia.com/2009/pta_91202/index.html

Duncan Blows Off Constitution, Facts

by Neal McCluskey

Cato Institute

It never ceases to amaze me how effortlessly federal “educators” blow off the Constitution. Amazing me today is none other than U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, who in an address to the National Association of State Boards of Education offered the following cavalier dismissal of the Supreme Law of the Land:

I’d like to talk to you today about the federal role in education policy. It’s often noted that the Constitution doesn’t mention education, and that the provision of education has always been a state and local responsibility.

Yet, it is also true that American leaders have always considered education to be an important priority. They’ve always believed that a strong and innovative education system is the foundation of our democracy and an investment in our economic future.

This national commitment to education predates even the ratification of the Constitution. In the Northwest Ordinance governing the sale of land in the Northwest Territories, the fledgling government required townships to reserve money for the construction of schools.

In the middle of the Civil War, President Lincoln signed the Morrill Act to create land grant colleges and universities. Today, those institutions are some of the best teaching and research institutions in the world…

Here you see a textbook example of how you can brush off the Constitution in just a few easy steps! First, you acknowledge (actually, this part is optional) that authority over education is nowhere among the federal government’s specifically enumerated powers. Next, you shamelessly imply that all the founders really wanted power over education to be in the Constitution. After that, you always mention the Northwest Ordinance, even though it had nothing to do with the Constitution. Finally, you laud blatantly unconstitutional things other people have done and — voila! — the Constitution disappears!

Of course, making a factually or logically sustainable argument that you are not violating the Constitution when you obviously are is not the real goal here. This is just the standard political kabuki dance, a necessary bit of deference-payment to those few rubes who might still think that the Constitution serves some legitimate purpose.

That said, don’t you expect more from our secretary of education? After all, he has undertaken the incredibly noble job of teaching all of our children. Don’t you expect complete honesty from him, and maybe even some respect for the Constitution that he has taken an oath to uphold?

Of course you don’t. Neither do I — not one bit.

Obama education chief Duncan to push schools reform
by Greg Toppo
USA Today
September 24 2009

Talk about "tired arguments"--Duncan's litany about every kid going to college is pretty stale. As though we didn't already have 3 people with engineering degrees for every available job. And our professional organizations are too weak-kneed to say the emperor has no clothes.

We need to emphasize the importance of diversity: different goals for different kids. One size won't fit all.

Read the full speech and my comments here.
=====================================

Gates Memo to Support "Race to the Top"

Note that Gates tells applicants what questions will be asked--and what the answers must be. This is their view of education in a nutshell.

The Gates Foundation had already handpicked 15 states to receive $250,000 each to help them apply for Race to the Top funds: Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Texas. Now, probably because of whining of "unfair," they're offering a bone to the other 35 states --if they can answer "Yes, master," enough times.

See the Gates memo here.

September 23, 2009
==============================================

Education Experts Propose Skills Set for Students Nationwide

"This is more bottom-up than top-down," said Michael Cohen, president of Achieve. He must be standing on his head.
Take a look at how many people working on the "skills set" have a working relationship with Achieve.

By Nick Anderson 

Washington Post, Sept. 22, 2009

Experts convened by the nation's governors and state schools chiefs on Monday proposed a set of math and English skills students should master before high school graduation, the first step toward what advocates hope will become common standards driving instruction in classrooms from coast to coast.

The proposal aims to lift expectations for students beyond current standards, which vary widely from state to state, and establish for the first time an effective national consensus on core academic goals to help the United States keep pace with global competitors. Such agreement has proven elusive in the past because of a long tradition of local control over standards, testing and curriculum.

In math, the proposal envisions that students would be able to solve systems of equations; find and interpret rates of change; and adapt probability models to solve real-world problems. In English language arts, they would be able to analyze how word choices shape the meaning and tone of a text; develop a style and tone of writing appropriate to a task and audience; and respond constructively to advance a discussion and build on the input of others.

The proposal, posted at http://www.corestandards.org, was drafted over the summer by a group including experts affiliated with the organizations that oversee the ACT and SAT college admissions exams, as well as Achieve Inc., a standards advocate based in the District. The National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers launched the Common Core Standards Initiative this year, enlisting 48 states and the District of Columbia. The two holdouts are Texas, which recently updated its standards, and Alaska, where officials reportedly are reserving judgment.

The initiative has far to go. Experts are collecting comments for the next month. In 2010, they plan to write grade-by-grade standards from kindergarten onward. There is no guarantee that states will adopt the final product.

But Chester E. Finn Jr., a former Reagan administration education official, said Monday's development was significant. "We have now a public working draft of what could turn out to be the beginnings of national standards for K through 12 education," he said. "That's potentially a very big deal."

Monday's draft, according to Dane Linn, education director at the governors association's Center for Best Practices, was circulated among a wider group of experts, including Finn, and vetted by representatives from six states: California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Massachusetts and Minnesota.

For many years, scholars and policymakers have debated whether public schools should be held to national academic standards. The 2002 No Child Left Behind law left it to states to determine what students ought to learn in reading and math and how they ought to be tested.

Proponents of national standards say it is folly to have uneven expectations for students when the United States trails several countries in Asia and Europe on international exams. Opponents say the federal government should not dictate what is taught.

"Advocates of true education reform -- rather than repackaging the same failed policies -- need to keep in mind a simple truth: Previous efforts to create national standards failed utterly because Americans have extremely varied educational wants and needs," said Neal McCluskey, associate director of the Center for Educational Freedom at the Cato Institute. "Efforts to address all of them with one-size-fits-all Beltway diktats will be fruitless at best, and quite harmful at worst."

Advocates of the initiative say what sets it apart is that the federal government is a bystander more than a player.

"This is more bottom-up than top-down," said Michael Cohen, president of Achieve, who was a Clinton administration education official. "It is very important that the federal government is not a key actor in this."

However, the Obama administration has been cheering the effort and is planning a $350 million grant competition to encourage states or groups of states to adopt common, high-quality standards and develop tests based on them.

Dear President Obama,

Even though I'm one who believes that the U.S. should join the rest of the industrialized world and have a genuine single-payer option, I was cheered by your message on health care last night.

You are such a brilliant man that I would have thought you could see the connection between the desire to lower health care costs and one of your other policy decisions.  That is, I would have thought that you would understand that by continuing and even worsening George W. Bush's No Child Left Behind, you are making it increasingly impossible for children to have outdoor play, the physical exercise that is so essential for combating obesity in children.  My youngest daughter, now in fourth grade at a public elementary school, has not had recess since...well, she never has.  Of course, even if obesity in children were not the problem that it is, I would hope you would understand that play is even more essential to children being able to learn and grow.

The U.S. spends over 260 billion dollars on the struggle against obesity and diabetes.  Surely, you can see that if we let teachers teach and let children be children, rather than both being servants to completely feckless and dangerous testing regimens (I beg you to read the independent research), then we will have taken a giant leap toward paying for your health care plan and toward fulfilling the promise of public education.

Sincerely,

Cindy Lutenbacher

Morehouse College

Atlanta, GA

"Handing out standards in the name of
preparing everyone to meet the high skills that will be
demanded for employment in the twenty-first century is as
cynical as handing out menus to homeless people in the name
of eradicating hunger."  (Susan Ohanian, One Size Fits
Few, p. 31).  

It looks like many of the professional organizations are
only interested in debating about what will be on the menu.--Stephen Krashen

• adopting rigorous standards that prepare students for success in college and the workforce;
• recruiting and retaining effective teachers, especially in classrooms where they are needed most;
• turning around low-performing schools; and
• building data systems to track student achievement and teacher effectiveness.

• More support for teachers in the form of lower class sizes, ample support staff, time to collaborate with colleagues, and flexibility to offer a rich curriculum
• Policies that will eradicate poverty and eliminate the gross inequalities in wealth and income that plague our country.

Pay-Per-Score: Arne Duncan and Merit Pay

Dissent Magazine

July 2009

by Susan Harman

OUR NEW Secretary of Education Arne Duncan (and his president) argues that we need to "incent" teachers with "merit pay" to get them to do better: "I think we cannot do enough to recognize, reward, shine a spotlight on, and yes, incent excellence." To understand how many things are wrong with this assumption, we need to take it apart.

What does he mean by doing better? He means getting our students to score higher on the tests. But researchers have found that test scores correlate very highly with socio-economic status. Those schools with poor kids and high scores have likely resorted to gamesmanship: They hold kids over in ninth grade, so they don’t lower the all-important tenth grade scores and push out low scorers. They "re-norm" the tests and set new cutoff points so that last year’s failing score is this year's "proficient" score. They teach to the test by turning the curriculum into "drill-and-kill" test preparation--or simply teach the test itself (otherwise known as cheating).

So why does Duncan call it merit pay then? Is there anything meritorious about relentlessly subjecting kids to test prep? Defining a school’s success or a teacher's merit by high test scores is not just simplistic but profoundly wrong. A school devoted to test prep is a bad school whereas a school where children and adults delve deeply into a rich, experiential, relevant, and sophisticated curriculum is a good school. The latter may also have high scores but that's often a function of the socio-economic status of the children who go there since this kind of school tends to be populated by families who do not tolerate a test-prep curriculum.

Let's instead call merit pay what it is: pay-per-score.

Duncan thinks the reason children score low is that teachers don’t work hard enough at raising the scores. He might actually have some insight here. I don't know a teacher who thinks the tests provide any instructionally useful data, so why invest the time or energy in prepping students for them? Since teachers hate doing test prep, which is what much of our curriculum has become, perhaps Duncan is right that only money will motivate us to raise scores.

What would actually doing better in schools look like? It would mean building on what the teachers are already doing: designing engaging curriculum, forging relationships with children and their families and neighborhoods, and collaborating with their colleagues. It would take full advantage of the fact that many, if not most, teachers love working with kids. Duncan's concept of merit pay suggests that he doesn’t know this. Instead, he demands we substitute "drill-and-kill" test prep, which engages no one except the companies that publish the tests and the prep materials (the Big Three are Pearson, Houghton Mifflin, and the Bush family favorites, CTB/McGraw-Hill).

Would we need to be bribed to teach genuine curriculum better? Do our business and political leaders think people go into teaching for the money? Perhaps they haven’t looked at teacher salaries lately. Don't they know that people go into teaching for the love of the craft and the kids—in other words, because they feel a "calling"? Ask any of us, and I’m betting not one will say, "Ever since I was little I loved playing school and handing out bubble answer sheets to the other kids and making them fill them in."

If the federal government imposes a pay incentive based on test scores, who would want to teach poor kids since it's clear that they often score low on tests. Now, I know I just said that teachers don't do it for the money, and we all know that many of us are committed to working with poor kids. Nevertheless, to know up front that you will be paid less than those up the hill working with the rich kids--that could "dis-incent" some teachers. Plus the fact that middle-class parents substantially subsidize the "frills," which have been driven out of the generic school day by the pressure to raise test scores, means that the hills schools have art, music, libraries, foreign languages, P.E., science, trips, and recess. The flatlands schools--without these parental inputs--suffer from "drill-and-kill" phonics and arithmetic. Regardless of one's commitment to the poor, who would want to administer scripted texts as opposed to teaching genuine curriculum?

But perhaps the Broads, Gateses, and Business Roundtable folks who are running education in this country don’t love what they do. Perhaps they do, indeed, need to be "incented" with money to do what they do. Perhaps misery loves company. I feel sorry for them and would urge them to spend some time with a good teacher in a school that has escaped the drill-and-kill curricula these same businessmen have imposed on the rest of us. Perhaps a visit to the Sidwell Friends School, in Washington, D.C., where Malia and Sasha go, would change Duncan's perspective on what's valuable to learn--and what motivates teachers to teach it. It certainly ain't pay-per-score.

Susan Harman is a semi-retired principal, teacher, psychologist, and writer, and the Coordinator of CalCARE, the California Resistance to the standards and testing madness.

==========================

Ohanian NOTE: Collaborationists on this project are doing the high school  components first. Then they will move backwards, inflicting their ideology on younger children. Supposedly, the US Department of Education will gather public comment on the program's rules over the next 30 days and accept applications for funding this fall.

Obama Launches Race for $4 Billion in Education Funds
Washington Post

July 24, 2009

Some Comments at the Washington Post website:
NomoStew wrote :
I guess Obama isn't satisfied with losing the conservatives, the police, and the doctors. Now he's going for teachers, too. Nobody knows whether these commercial tests really mean anything, and teachers are most likely to "succeed" according to their communities, not their teaching. This plan will accelerate the flight of good teachers from bad schools. Way to go, O. I'm starting to think the famous female politician who ought to quit is Clinton, to get ready for 2012. He has too many balls in the air already, and the fact that he is getting stretched too thin could not be better revealed than by this ignorant plan.

dwyerj1 wrote:
. . . .If you want your children to become truly educated, collect a good library of paper-printed books, and do it yourself. Read together "the best that has been known and thought [and written] in the world irrespective of practice, politics, and everything of the kind." Don't trust Secretary Duncan and President Obama and their Charter Schools with your kids.

Don't embrace the new religion of School Reform.

wolfcastle wrote:
Wait a minute...."link teacher pay to student achievement and adopt common national academic standards"...that certainly sounds a lot like No Child Left Behind.

By William Branigin

President Obama launched a competition Friday for $4.35 billion in federal education funds, urging states to ease restrictions on charter schools, link teacher pay to student achievement and adopt common national academic standards to be eligible for the money.

In a speech at the Education Department, Obama joined Education Secretary Arne Duncan in announcing draft criteria for the "Race to the Top" fund, which the administration is billing as the "largest-ever federal investment in education reform."

"America will not succeed in the 21st century unless we do a far better job of educating our sons and daughters," Obama said. "In a world where countries that out-educate us today will out-compete us tomorrow, the future belongs to the nation that best educates its people."

Acknowledging that "our education system is falling short," he said that for years, "we've talked these problems to death . . . while doing all too little to solve them." Now, he said, he is challenging the nation's governors, schools boards, teachers, parents, students and others to meet "a few key benchmarks for reform" in order to compete for and win Race to the Top grants.

"That race starts today," Obama said. He pledged that "this competition will not be based on politics or ideology or the preferences of a particular interest group" but on "whether a state is ready to do what works."

If everyone pitches in, he said, "then we will not only strengthen our economy over the long run, and we will not only make America's entire education system the envy of the world, but we will launch a Race to the Top that will prepare every child, everywhere in America, for the challenges of the 21st century."

The fund "will reward eligible states for past accomplishments and create incentives for future improvement" in four key areas: toughening academic standards, recruiting and retaining effective teachers, turning around failing schools and tracking the performance of students and teachers, the Education Department said.

In an interview with The Washington Post, Obama made it clear that he wants to use the federal aid as leverage to reform the U.S. public education system, which by some measures has been lagging behind the school systems of other industrialized countries.

Speaking before Obama addressed the gathering Friday, Duncan underscored a need to target particular school districts for reform. He noted that 2,000 high schools produce half the country's dropouts and "a staggering 75 percent of our nation's minority dropouts."

Warning that states can increase or decrease their odds of winning federal support through their policies, Duncan said states that cap the number of charter schools or fail to hold such schools accountable, for example, "will be at a disadvantage," and those that prohibit linking student performance to teacher evaluations "will be ineligible" for the funding. Several states, including New York, California and Wisconsin, bar such linkages, which also are generally opposed by teachers unions.

In addition to the Race to the Top fund, which was established under the $787 billion economic stimulus package enacted in February, the government is making billions more available for educational innovation, technology and other programs, Duncan said.

"When you add it all up, the department will be disbursing almost $10 billion for education reform," he said. He urged state governments: "Do not let this unprecedented opportunity slip by."

The Education Department plans to gather public comment on the program's rules over the next 30 days before finalizing the criteria and accepting applications for funding this fall. Officials expect to release the first round of aid early next year, with a second tranche following by September 2010.

From Jim Crawford, Discussion Group for Organizational Alternatives for ELL Research and Advocacy
What's most remarkable about Race to the Top -- especially coming from a progressive Democrat like Obama -- is that it's an end-run around the democratic process.

1. National standards and tests have long been controversial ideas. But with its new slush fund for "reform," the Obama administration can now "incentivize" states to go along, regardless of what Congress wants to do. This would be a policy change with enormous implications, and it should properly be debated as part of ESEA reauthorization, when there would be at least some chance for critical views to be heard and for citizens to contact their representatives. But the administration has set this up so states will already be on board before Congress acts and any protests may come too late to have an impact on the outcome.

2. Experiments with "merit pay" systems for teachers are already happening as pilot projects around the country, with help from the federal Teacher Incentive Fund. Obama is pushing for that program's funding to be quintupled from $97 million to $487 billion in the appropriations bill now pending (and Congress will probably approve most of it). But the carrot is not enough for this administration; it wants the stick, too. Duncan is now telling states they'll have to "change their laws" to allow test scores to be used in calculating merit pay or miss out on funding for any kind of "school reform" project. Why? Not because we've had any full airing of the issues -- e.g., in a Congressional hearing -- or any kind of deliberative process, but merely because Barack and Arne think they know better.

Congress occasionally passes laws that overrule state authority -- e.g., when it raised the national drinking age to 21 under pressure from Mothers Against Drunk Driving. In my view that was an unfortunate decision, which seemed to exacerbate the problem of binge drinking on campus, but at least it was done with some semblance of democracy. Since when does the president have power to force states to change their laws to conform to his preferred policies by threatening to withhold funding for unrelated purposes? A very bad precedent.

3. It also looks like states will now have to take draconian steps to "turn around failing schools" -- in particular, replacing all the teachers and administrators. That's one option now allowed under NCLB. Obama & Duncan are telling states to require it a lot more often if want to keep the federal money flowing. There's no evidence that reconstituting schools is effective, despite considerable research in this area. But, using the carrot of federal funding, the "reformers" have the power to impose their pet solution without democratic interference. And they obviously plan to do so.

Sharon asks, "What can we do?"

Keep the pressure on in every way we can. (Hint: That means people like ourselves actually need to take action -- something I haven't witnessed much of in recent months.) Bombard the news media with complaints. Try to get well known "experts" off their collective asses to contradict Obama's claim that Arne has built a "consensus" behind his approach. Work with dissidents in education groups, including state and local teachers unions, to pressure their national leaders to stop rolling over and playing dead. Get parents involved. Appeal to liberals in Congress to make noise -- we only need one or two strong champions to have an impact on the debate -- e.g., senators like Russ Feingold, Bernie Sanders, Dick Durbin, or Al Franken (who was close to the late Paul Wellstone, the only major-league politician who ever seemed to fully "get it" about high stakes testing).

Here are some things that we don't need: more conference presentations and journal articles. There's nothing wrong with such activities in themselves and I wouldn't discourage them. But unfortunately, these are the only things many of my academic friends seem willing to do -- i.e., projects designed to further their careers. Which is fine, but they shouldn't kid themselves that what they're doing is "advocacy." And advocacy will be the only hope of stopping this slow-motion disaster now occurring before our eyes.

from Susan Ohanian: A few hundred words from the Secretary of Education, who has a penchant for choosing ugly metaphors to describe ugly deeds. Race to the Top is particularly ugly as a metaphor for what happens in schools. Only one person can win a race. All the others are losers. Even worse, is the emphasis on "the data gap." Indeed.  He worships data produced by standardized tests we all know to be corrupt.

And he's got buckets of money to assume his role as the Pied Piper of Hamelin. Governors are scrambling to follow him. We must work to save the children. Read Jim's last paragraph again. Only I disagree: I think this is a fast-moving disaster, being pushed at breakneck speed with Duncan's money pots.
==============================================



The Race to the Top Begins—Remarks by Secretary of Arne Duncan

FOR RELEASE: July 24, 2009

Speaker sometimes deviates from text.

Today is a great day—not just for those of you here to listen to President Obama in a few minutes but for tens of thousands of teachers, parents, principals, school superintendents, and lawmakers across the country who have devoted their energy, their passion, and their commitment over the years to improving our nation's schools.

Today we cross an important threshold in education reform. Today we are announcing the draft guidelines for states to apply for the $4.35 billion dollar Race to the Top fund. Today we are here to announce—and celebrate—a new Race to the Top in schoolhouses across America.

I've been saying for months that we now have a perfect storm for reform. We have a President and a First Lady who believe passionately in the power of education to open doors—and whose own lives of studious learning and hard work are testaments to the fact that education is ultimately the great equalizer in America, no matter what your zip code.

We have what I call the "Barack Effect." The president—and the First Lady—have made education cool and hip again. I hear kids say all the time that they not only want to be the president, they want to be smart like the president.

We have great congressional leaders like Congressman George Miller, who has fought sometimes lonely battles, but always to make our schools better. We have union leaders like Randi Weingarten and Dennis Van Roekel, who are stepping outside their easy comfort zone and working with us to challenge the status quo. We have governors from around the country joining together to say no more to dumbing down academic standards and cheating students of a quality education.

And finally, for the first time in history, we have the resources at the federal level to drive reform.

I am not going to kid you—when I was superintendent of the Chicago Public Schools, I did not always welcome calls from the U.S. Department of Education.

That's because the department, from its inception in 1980, has traditionally been a compliance-driven agency. For most of its existence, the department has only had modest discretionary funds available for reform and innovation— and a limited ability to push for better outcomes.

That's about to change. The $4.35 billion dollar Race to the Top program that we are unveiling today is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for the federal government to create incentives for far-reaching improvement in our nation's schools.

Since the education department was created in 1980, eight of my predecessors have stood here. They fought to improve our schools, too. But none of them had the resources to encourage innovation that we have today.

In fact, if you take all of the discretionary money for reform that every one of my predecessors had—and then add it all together for the last 29 years in a row—it's still a much smaller money pot for reform than the $4.35 billion Race to the Top fund that we are announcing today.

For states, for district leaders, for unions, for business, and for non-profits, the Race to the Top is the equivalent of education reform's moon shot. And the administration is determined—I am determined—not to miss this opportunity.

What is the administration going to be looking for in the Race to the Top competition? We are going to be scrutinizing state applications for a coordinated and deep-seated commitment to reform. And we are going to be awarding grants on a competitive basis in two rounds, allowing first-round losers to make necessary changes and reapply.

We take our cue here from the president. He starts with the understanding that maintaining the status quo in our schools is unacceptable. He recognizes that America needs urgently to reduce its high dropout rates and elevate the quality of K-12 schooling—not just to propel the economic recovery but also because students need stronger skills to compete with students in India and China.

Today, more than ever, better schooling provides a down payment on the nation's future. As President Obama puts it, "education is no longer just a pathway to opportunity and success—it's a prerequisite for success." Yet I think we all know that far too many schools fail to prepare their students today for success in college or a career.

Under the Race to the Top guidelines, states seeking funds will be pressed to implement four core, interconnected reforms. We sometimes call them the four assurances, and those assurances are what we are going to be looking for from states, districts, and their local partners in reform.

For starters, we expect that winners of the Race to the Top grants will work to reverse the pervasive dumbing down of academic standards and assessments that has taken place in many states.

A low-income, middle school student in San Antonio should not be held to a lower standard in algebra than a middle school student in Shaker Heights—or Shanghai. That's why we are looking for Race to the Top states to adopt common, internationally-benchmarked K-12 standards that truly prepare students for college and careers. To speed this process, the Race to the Top program is going to set aside $350 million to competitively fund the development of rigorous, common state assessments.

Second, we want to close the data gap that now handcuffs districts from tracking growth in student learning and improving classroom instruction. Award-winning states will be able to monitor growth in student learning—and identify effective instructional practices.

Third, it is no secret that when it comes to schools, talent matters—tremendously. To boost the quality of teachers and principals, especially in high-poverty schools and hard-to-staff subjects, states and districts should be able to identify effective teachers and principals. At the local level we want to see better strategies in place to reward and retain more top-notch teachers—and improve or replace ones who aren't up to the job.

And finally, to turn around the lowest-performing schools, states and districts must be ready to institute far-reaching reforms, replace school staff, and change the school culture. We cannot continue to tinker in terrible schools where students fall further and further behind, year after year.

Now those are our four assurances, the fore core reforms that we are looking for. But I want to be clear that these four reforms are interrelated, so that one reform reinforces the others.

When teachers get better data on student growth, it empowers teachers to tailor classroom instruction to the needs of their students and boost student achievement.

When principals are able to identify their most effective and least effective teachers, it makes it easier for them to place teachers where they are needed most—and provide struggling teachers with help.

When superintendents have the authority to tackle their lowest performing schools by replacing staff and shaking up the school culture, they will have the ability—for the first time—to close or remake the dropout factories in our urban districts that are at the root of our dropout problem.

And when state lawmakers and chief school officers can evaluate the college-readiness of students and their ability to compete with their peers—not just in nearby states but in other nations—state officials will be able to diagnose the strengths and weaknesses of the state system in a global economy—again, for the first time.

The Race to the Top program is going to mark a new federal partnership in education reform with states, districts, and unions to accelerate reform. We are going to be consulting and soliciting the input of all stakeholders, and I plan to hold a conference call for governors, chief state officers, state lawmakers and state school boards on August 5.

But I want to be clear that the Race to the Top is also a reform competition, one where states can increase or decrease their odds of winning federal support.

States, for example, that limit alternative routes to certification for teachers and principals, or cap the number of charter schools, will be at a competitive disadvantage. And states that explicitly prohibit linking data on achievement or student growth to principal and teacher evaluations will be ineligible for reform dollars until they change their laws.

As big as the Race to the Top fund is, it's not the only major lever for transformational reform. We are also going to be releasing shortly the guidelines for the $3.5 billion Title I School Improvement Grants. And most of that money is going to go to low-income districts that are willing to turn around their lowest-performing schools.

Later this summer we expect to publish the metrics for the competitive $650 million dollar Invest in Innovation Fund, which will award districts and non-profits that are developing cutting-edge reforms, piloting promising new programs or taking proven programs to scale.

We also have $650 million dollars to award in education technology grants to states and districts that are doing a good job of using technology to enhance learning. We have $200 million in Recovery Act funding for the Teacher Incentive Fund, which supports performance-based teacher and principal compensation systems in high-need schools. And finally, we have more than $300 million available to help states build data systems that will drive reforms.

I know I've just thrown a lot of numbers and programs at you. But the long and short of it, is that when you add it all up, the department will be disbursing almost $10 billion for education reform.

Ten billion dollars is not chump change. And to every governor who ever aspired to be his state's "education governor," I say: do not let this unprecedented opportunity slip away.

Let me close by saying that the president and I are not naïve about the difficulty of reform. I served as superintendent of the Chicago Public Schools for seven years. And I saw firsthand that the system often serves the interests of adults better than its students.

But I don't accept much of the pessimism and age-old apathy about the potential of school reform. During my seven years as CEO of Chicago's schools, tests scores increased on state and national exams, and the percentage of students graduating increased. That happened not just because of the district's efforts but because teachers, community leaders, and parents worked hard to make reform a reality.

Since being confirmed as Secretary, I have visited 23 states and met countless students, teachers, parents and administrators. They are hungering for change. I've seen districts and high-performing schools that are closing achievement gaps, raising graduation rates, and sending disadvantaged young people to college with scholarships in hand.

In just the months since President Obama took office, many states have adopted reforms that would have been almost unthinkable a year ago. Earlier this spring, 46 states signed on to a state-led process to develop a common core of K-12 state standards in English language arts and math. At the same time, states such as Tennessee, Rhode Island, Indiana, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Colorado, and Illinois have lifted restrictions on charter school growth.

So, despite the obstacles, I remain optimistic about America's capacity for transformational change. As I said today in the Washington Post, the edifice of education reform will take years to build. But the Race to the Top starts today.

Let me ask: Please put your hand up if you are ready to sign on to the Race to the Top!

That is what I'm talking about. As Sam Cooke used to sing, a change is gonna come. Today that change has begun. Thank you, all of you, for your hard work on behalf of our nation's schoolchildren.

"The members who comprised it were seven-eighths of them, ...the meanest kind of bawling and blowing officeholders, office-seekers, pimps, malignants, conspirators, murderers, fancy-men, custom-house clerks, contracts, kept-editors, spaniels well train'd to carry and fetch, jobbers, infidels, disunionists, terrorists, mail riflers, slave-catchers, pushers of slavery, creatures of the President, creatures of would-be Presidents, spies, bribers, compromisers, lobbyists, spongers, ruin'd sports, expell'd gamblers, policy-backers, monte-dealers, duelists, carriers of conceal'd weapons, deaf men, pimpled men, scarred inside with vile disease, gaudy outside with gold chains made from the people's money and harlots' money twisted together; crawling, serpentine men, the lousy combinings and born freedom-sellers of the earth. "

—Walt Whitman on Democratic convention but it could be a teacher describing

The perfect storm also includes the great leadership on Capitol Hill—on both sides of the aisle—from Lamar Alexander and Senator Michael Enzi to Ted Kennedy and George Miller. . . .

First, we are encouraging states to adopt rigorous standards that are internationally benchmarked. A nation without true career- and college-ready standards is lying to its children. A nation with low academic standards is telling students and parents that our kids are doing well—when, in fact, they are not.

A nation that does not benchmark its standards against the highest international standards is crippling our children in the competition for jobs.

That competition is not just coming from the next street or even the next state. It's coming from India and China, Singapore and Korea. . . .

Many other governors have been actively involved with Achieve over the years.

I want to thank Governor Pawlenty for taking a leadership role at Achieve right now, and also thank Governors Granholm, Carcieri, Rendell, Bredesen, Heineman, and Patrick.

Gene Wilhoit has made national standards his top priority as the executive director of the Council of Chief State School Officers. Thanks to his organization and the NGA – your hard work and leadership is paying off.

As I said before, 46 states and three territories have now committed to creating common internationally-benchmarked college and career-ready standards. And you deserve a big, big hand for that.

Creating common standards hasn’t always been popular. Right now, though, there’s a growing consensus that this is the right thing to do.

The list of supporters for this effort is long: The National Education Association, the American Federation of Teachers, the Council of the Great City Schools, and business leaders. From what I’ve heard on our listening tour, teachers in the classroom are supporting you as well. . . .[emphasis added]

=========================

from Why Is Corporate America Bashing Our Public Schools by Kathy Emery and Susan Ohanian (2004)

In 1989, CEOs of the nation's largest 218 corporations met to figure out how to promote the National Educational Goals developed by the nation's governors. They insisted then and continue to insist now that their decision to bring the resources of corporate America behind a specific educational reform agenda stemmed from the threat to the United States' premier economic status in the world.

Edward Rust, CEO state Farm Insurance, co-chair Business Coalition for Excellence in Education, chair, Business Roundtable Education Task Force, chair National Alliance of Business, cochair, Committee for Economic Development Subcommittee on Education Policy, Member of the Board Achieve, member of the board McGraw-Hill, President-elect Bush's transition advisory Team Committee on Education, board of trustees American Enterprise Institute, has been called a bulldog for standards. He uses his powerful web of corporate cronies to push for the business model of school management, which emphasizes testing and hierarchy.

Since 1989, the Business Roundtable bully pulpit has pushed state governments to establish rigorous and measurable standards in core academic subjects for all students (emphasis in original) and adopt statewide testing to find out whether students are meeting the standards. The BRT focuses on standards because "standards drive curriculum, teacher training and assessment." When you wonder why the number of state standards exceeds the population of Liechtenstein, thank the Business Roundtable, who insist that, as night follows day, "When standards are high and assessments are geared to each standards, teaching improves and student achievment rises." (Business Roundtable 1995)